Allowed

Jyoti v. State of Haryana & Others

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Feb 2011CWP/15784/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the University's cancellation of admission granted to petitioners within the court-sanctioned date. Relying on precedent, the Court held it impermissible to cancel admission when students completed the course without fault and directed the University to declare results forthwith.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; impugned action of cancelling admission set aside; University directed to declare results forthwith.

Jyoti Vs State of Haryana & Others — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

C.W.P. No.15784 of 2009

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

DATE OF DECISION :3.2.2011

¶5

1. C.W.P. No.15784 of 2009

¶6

Jyoti v. State of Haryana and others.

¶7

2. C.W.P. No.7952 of 2010

¶8

Beenu and another v. State of Haryana and others.

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present:Shri Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP 15784/2009).

¶11

Shri Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP 7252 of 2010).

¶12

Shri Sunil Nehra, Senior D.A.G. Haryana.

¶13

Shri Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with Shri Vikrant Sharma, Advocate.

¶14

Shri C.B.Goel, Senior Advocate with Shri Himanshu Aggarwal, Advocate.

¶15

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶16

This order will dispose of C.W.P. Nos.15784 of 2009 and 7952 of

¶17

¶18

C.W.P. No.15784 of 2009 -2-

¶19

The petitioner (in C.W.P.15784 of 2010) had sought admission which was granted to her in B.Ed. course being admitted by the private institutions who have been arrayed as respondents in the writ petition. The College is a selffinancing institute and prior to the instant admission, the association on behalf of various such institutions in the State of Haryana filed C.W.P. No.17284 of 2008 in which directions were given by this Court permitting them to make admissions to B.Ed. course by 5.12.2008.

¶20

It is pursuant to this indulgence granted by this Court that the petitioner sought and was granted admission to the said course which she attended subsequent thereto and also took the examinations which were held from 16.6.2009 to 2.7.2009 and also took the practical examinations held from 9.8.2009 to 11.8.2009, but the result of the petitioner was, however, not declared and the respondent/University issued letter dated 11.8.2009 cancelling the admission granted to the petitioner by this Court.

¶21

The petitioner pleads that as admission was granted to her on 5.12.2008 which was the date enabling the colleges to grant admissions to the students in the B.Ed. course, which fact is admitted by the College who is also the respondent herein. The petitioner then continued with the course after having filed the instant writ petition with the grievance that the cancellation of her admission is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

¶22

Upon notice of motion having been issued, the respondents filed their respective replies to the writ petition and the University who has cancelled the admission, has pleaded that since admissions were made on 5.12.2008 and the forms were required to be sent till 5 p.m. on the said date, but the same was received much belatedly and thus, the College was informed about the decision of the University on 4.12.2009.

¶23

Upon an appraisal of the controversy, I am of the opinion that the

¶24

C.W.P. No.15784 of 2009 -3-

¶25

University has committed gross illegality by cancelling the admission of the petitioner. The material which has been produced on record shows that on 5.12.2008 the College had granted admission to the petitioner which was signed by all the members of the admission committee.

¶26

The plea of the University that the roll number was issued to the petitioner inadvertently and on the basis of which she took examination, is unfounded. Once there is no misrepresentation by the student or the College, then it cannot be accepted that the roll number was issued due to inadvertence. The attendance sheet for the period December, 2008 has been attached with the paperbook which shows that Jyoti (petitioner in CWP15784 of 2009) has been marked present on 5.12.2008. Likewise Binu, (petitioner in CWP 7952 of 2010) has also been marked present on 5.12.2009. Similarly, Alok Kumar Pandey, (petitioner in CWP 7952 of 2010) has also been marked present from 6^th of December, 2008 onwards.

¶27

Be that as it may, the fact that remains, that there is sufficient material to show that the petitioners were admitted on 5.12.2008 and the admission process was signed by the members of the Administrative Committee and only the communication was sent by the University somewhat belatedly. The petitioners have almost completed their course and therefore, it would be extremely harsh to make them suffer for no fault of theirs. Even otherwise, the plea of the University that admissions were made on 9.1.2009 after the cut off date, i.e. 5.12.2008, does not inspire confidence in view of the observations made above. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra A.I.R. 1976 S.C.376, held as under :-

¶28

“Once the candidate is allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has

¶29

C.W.P. No.15784 of 2009

¶30

-4-

¶31

worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear.”

¶32

In view of above, when the petitioners were not at fault and they have completed their course and also in view of the fact that the petitioners were admitted on the date permitted by this Court, the writ petitions are accepted and the impugned action of the respondent/University in cancelling the admission of the petitioners is set aside and they are directed to declare the result of the petitioners forthwith.

¶33

(MAHESH GROVER) February 3, 2011 JUDGE GD

¶34

WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO

Jyoti v. State of Haryana & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti v. State of Haryana & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Haryana

Karamjit Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Meghna Sharma Vs K.U.K and Ors.

Vikas Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mahabir Goel Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Bal Bahadur Singh Batta Vs Punjab and Haryana High Court